The Coronavirus thread

[MTC]

That kind of supports my gut feeling that I've been exposed to this multiple times by different people pretty close in my life (co-worker in office next door, friend, daughter). I wondered why I didn't get their bug at the time right before this blew up.

Whatever cold/flu/pneumonia was floating around from December to march.
That’s my theory that we were exposed.

It was a nasty booger that gave me a sinus infection for four days.
But the media ran with it and the government took that as an opportunity to shackle us in an election year.

 

[IndySteel]

Basically, if you don’t have AIDS or Lupus, you’ve already had the Kung Flu and are just fine.

 

[Iron95]

How are you comparing heart disease and cancer and what not to corona? Those are not contagious diseases.....The flu is a more valid comparison, but this is on pace to kill close to 2x as many as the worst flu season. You can debate whether or not its worth shutting down the country, but comparing apples to oranges is not helpful

I didnt. They did. Look it up.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Whatever cold/flu/pneumonia was floating around from December to march.
That’s my theory that we were exposed.

It was a nasty booger that gave me a sinus infection for four days.
But the media ran with it and the government took that as an opportunity to shackle us in an election year.

My mom who will be 70 this year had something similar back in the beginning of the year. I think she had the Covid.... guess Cuomo would have shipped her to a nursing home to die if she lived in NY.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but this should be the POST OF THE THREAD. Stickied. Pointed to. These are the facts.

It's NOT the FLU Bro. Spike should apologize. The media should apologize. Trump should apologize for following Fauci and the WHO. Ferguson and the University of Washington should apologize to the world for causing this epic, disturbing moment in global history.

The lockdown was sheer, utter, paranoid over-reaction.

---------------------

The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate. Where is the media?

Most people are more likely to wind up six feet under because of almost anything else under the sun other than COVID-19.

The CDC just came out with a report that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public. For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26 percent. Officials estimate a 0.4 percent fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35 percent rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26 percent — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.

Until now, we have been ridiculed for thinking the death rate was that low, as opposed to the 3.4 percent estimate of the World Health Organization, which helped drive the panic and the lockdowns. Now the CDC is agreeing to the lower rate in plain ink.

Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50 percent asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2 percent – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly, as I mentioned before, the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1 percent or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes. Since nearly all of the deaths are those with comorbidities.

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning.

To put this in perspective, one Twitter commentator juxtaposed the age-separated infection fatality rates in Spain to the average yearly probability of dying of anything for the same age groups, based on data from the Social Security Administration. He used Spain because we don’t have a detailed infection fatality rate estimate for each age group from any survey in the U.S. However, we know that Spain fared worse than almost every other country. This data is actually working with a top-line IFR of 1 percent, roughly four times what the CDC estimates for the U.S., so if anything, the corresponding numbers for the U.S. will be lower.

 

[Tibs]

The 'remarkably low' death rate was a direct consequence of the lockdown and stay at home measures which were implemented.

Go ahead pat yourself on the back Tim, for yet another Darwin Award-nominee post. It should be pinned, and re-pinned, to the top of the page, as you suggest, as a stark reminder of what we're dealing with on this board.

 

[jitter77]

I don't think the death rate matters that much as overall deaths. The death rate of a disease could be %100, but if only 20 people catch it your looking at 20 deaths.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The 'remarkably low' death rate was a direct consequence of the lockdown and stay at home measures which were implemented.


Go ahead pat yourself on the back Tim, for yet another Darwin Award-nominee post. It should be pinned, and re-pinned, to the top of the page, as you suggest, as a stark reminder of what we're dealing with on this board.

IFR stands for infection fatality rate. Explain how the lockdown affected that.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The 'remarkably low' death rate was a direct consequence of the lockdown and stay at home measures which were implemented.
.

As has been stated, you and every lockdown proponent will say after the fact, the lockdown worked. Or stupid **** like this, that shows you don't follow the science.

Antibody testing is showing that herd immunity matters. 20-85x the # of tested positive cases have the antibody. It also shows us two things:
1) We were as a population developing herd immunity BEFORE the lockdown
2) During the lockdown, people WERE getting infected, showing no symptoms, and passing the virus anyway.

If the lockdown were working, this vast many people wouldn't have the antibody. Few would have been coming in contact with the virus RIIIGHT?

The antibody testing shows it was here before the lockdown, it was spreading, and it spread during the lockdown.

And remember, that darling of the Left, Andrew "I send COVID19 patients into nursing homes" Cuomo stated a couple weeks ago 60% of their new cases were coming from people....who...stayed...at...home. Weird that...if the lockdown was working.

Then this:

Study: A majority of the population may have 'some degree' of preexisting immunity to COVID-19
Up to 60% of the population may have at least some protection against the virus.


A new study from scientists in the United States suggests that a significant majority of the population may already have some level of immunity to the coronavirus, a possible explanation for why so many individuals seem to experience few to no symptoms from the disease.

The study, written by researchers in California, New York and North Carolina and soon to be published in the journal Cell, discovered that certain types of cells in blood samples taken from donors in 2015-2018—well before COVID-19 arose—were reactive against the COVID-19 virus. In other words, those blood samples were at least partially immune from the coronavirus even though they had never been exposed to it.

"CD4+ T cell responses were detected in 40-60% of unexposed individuals. This may be reflective of some degree of crossreactive, preexisting immunity to SARS- CoV-2 in some, but not all, individuals," the researchers state in the paper.


---------------

OUCH.

Keep telling yourself the lockdown is the reason the death rate is now so low. Ignore the evidence.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

IFR stands for infection fatality rate. Explain how the lockdown affected that.

Look at the big brain on brad. Lol.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

As has been stated, you and every lockdown proponent will say after the fact, the lockdown worked. Or stupid **** like this, that shows you don't follow the science.

Antibody testing is showing that herd immunity matters. 20-85x the # of tested positive cases have the antibody. It also shows us two things:
1) We were as a population developing herd immunity BEFORE the lockdown
2) During the lockdown, people WERE getting infected, showing no symptoms, and passing the virus anyway.

If the lockdown were working, this vast many people wouldn't have the antibody. Few would have been coming in contact with the virus RIIIGHT?

The antibody testing shows it was here before the lockdown, it was spreading, and it spread during the lockdown.

And remember, that darling of the Left, Andrew "I send COVID19 patients into nursing homes" Cuomo stated a couple weeks ago 60% of their new cases were coming from people....who...stayed...at...home. Weird that...if the lockdown was working.

Then this:

Study: A majority of the population may have 'some degree' of preexisting immunity to COVID-19
Up to 60% of the population may have at least some protection against the virus.


A new study from scientists in the United States suggests that a significant majority of the population may already have some level of immunity to the coronavirus, a possible explanation for why so many individuals seem to experience few to no symptoms from the disease.

The study, written by researchers in California, New York and North Carolina and soon to be published in the journal Cell, discovered that certain types of cells in blood samples taken from donors in 2015-2018—well before COVID-19 arose—were reactive against the COVID-19 virus. In other words, those blood samples were at least partially immune from the coronavirus even though they had never been exposed to it.

"CD4+ T cell responses were detected in 40-60% of unexposed individuals. This may be reflective of some degree of crossreactive, preexisting immunity to SARS- CoV-2 in some, but not all, individuals," the researchers state in the paper.


---------------

OUCH.

Keep telling yourself the lockdown is the reason the death rate is now so low. Ignore the evidence.

But msn says.

 

[jitter77]

There is a huge difference between 20 and 85x. I do believe the virus was here much earlier, but the antibody data is all over the place at the moment. I know for a fact that 0 to 100% of people have the antibodies!

 

[hamster]

I happen to believe that history will view the lockdown as possibly the worst public policy decision in US history. And you can lay this at the feet of state governors.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

There is a huge difference between 20 and 85x. I do believe the virus was here much earlier, but the antibody data is all over the place at the moment. I know for a fact that 0 to 100% of people have the antibodies!

20-85X is what the Santa Clara study has shown. There have been many to this point with varying measures. When you couple the antibody testing to the new studies showing 60% of us may have pre-existing immunity dating back years...it's very powerful.

In my county as of today there are 10,111 cases, 526 deaths.

The population of my county is 1.05Million.

If you assume the 20x factor, that means there are 202,220 cases of Covid out there (19% of our population)
If you assume the 85x factor, that means there are 859,435 cases of Covid out there (82% of our population)

Yes, a wide variance. Even if you use the low end 20x factor, 1 in 5 people here have it or have had it. I think it's not 85x, I think it's higher than 20x though.

Fact remains, it's far more contagious and far less deadly then we were fear mongered into believing.

 

[jitter77]

The important thing is if you can get the virus again. If you can the whole anti-body thing goes out the window. Without scientific data it seems that you cant or those that can are very limited. I think places like NY would just keep going round and round if you could become re-infected. Next thing is will it mutate enough that current anti-bodies will not be effective like the various strains of flu. Still alot of unknowns

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The important thing is if you can get the virus again. If you can the whole anti-body thing goes out the window. Without scientific data it seems that you cant or those that can are very limited. I think places like NY would just keep going round and round if you could become re-infected. Next thing is will it mutate enough that current anti-bodies will not be effective like the various strains of flu. Still alot of unknowns

None of which necessitate locking down. To date this hasn't proven to be as deadly as we were convinced.

 

[Confluence]

The important thing is if you can get the virus again. If you can the whole anti-body thing goes out the window. Without scientific data it seems that you cant or those that can are very limited. I think places like NY would just keep going round and round if you could become re-infected. Next thing is will it mutate enough that current anti-bodies will not be effective like the various strains of flu. Still alot of unknowns

You mean like if you could get in a serious car crash every time you drive?

Or if you knew that all football and hockey and lacrosse and soccer players were very likely to get CTE?

Or do you mean that if you could get a worse malady, like the flu, bro, that you should lock down society?

 

[Confluence]

I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but this should be the POST OF THE THREAD. Stickied. Pointed to. These are the facts.

It's NOT the FLU Bro. Spike should apologize. The media should apologize. Trump should apologize for following Fauci and the WHO. Ferguson and the University of Washington should apologize to the world for causing this epic, disturbing moment in global history.

The lockdown was sheer, utter, paranoid over-reaction.

---------------------

The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate. Where is the media?

Most people are more likely to wind up six feet under because of almost anything else under the sun other than COVID-19.

The CDC just came out with a report that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public. For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26 percent. Officials estimate a 0.4 percent fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35 percent rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26 percent — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.

Until now, we have been ridiculed for thinking the death rate was that low, as opposed to the 3.4 percent estimate of the World Health Organization, which helped drive the panic and the lockdowns. Now the CDC is agreeing to the lower rate in plain ink.

Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50 percent asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2 percent – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly, as I mentioned before, the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1 percent or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes. Since nearly all of the deaths are those with comorbidities.

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning.

To put this in perspective, one Twitter commentator juxtaposed the age-separated infection fatality rates in Spain to the average yearly probability of dying of anything for the same age groups, based on data from the Social Security Administration. He used Spain because we don’t have a detailed infection fatality rate estimate for each age group from any survey in the U.S. However, we know that Spain fared worse than almost every other country. This data is actually working with a top-line IFR of 1 percent, roughly four times what the CDC estimates for the U.S., so if anything, the corresponding numbers for the U.S. will be lower.

Should the mods rename Spike "Chicken Little"?

 

[Steelworth]

Should the mods rename Spike "Chicken Little"?

I would give Spike a bit of a break. While he did freak out (and it was hard to even read his posts), he's an older gentleman who has had healthcare experience so I'm sure he had a more than rudimentary knowledge of infectious diseases and what they can potentially do, so, for lack of a better term, he probably got scared shitless.

When you factor in the Chinese's response to shutting down all of their domestic travel, to quarantining millions of their own people to the degree they did, to scientists and clinicians disappearing or dying -- I'd say that's pretty big cause for concern. Then you have Italy and Iran and what happened there.

I think it's easy to say in hindsight that we overreacted or did this or did that, but the simple truth is, is that nobody really knew what we were dealing with, especially when China wouldn't even let us or the WHO in until late February (I believe) to analyze anything.

Then you had all the users posting videos of people convulsing and patient upon patient looking like they were dying in hospital lobbies and emergency rooms like something out of a dystopian, apocalyptic movie. Jesus, this shook the world. Now that we have much more data, yes, it's time to open up and stop the fear-mongering. I know there are a lot of us who have been saying that for quite some time now. I know there were some scientists etc. who expressed their doubts and cynicism from the beginning (Vader comes to mind) here and many other places. The damage is done. Now all we can do is figure out how to get back to normal as much as possible, as soon as possible.

I'm much more irritated with Cope, who cited that he was not only a Scientist, but that he had relatives working at the NIH who were going on about reinfection rates and how long this virus could live on surfaces etc. and never answered any questions beyond that or never made any retractions or offered any apologies for his own fear-mongering. And I really like Cope. Oh well, it is what it is.

 

[jitter77]

So is the CDC right or wrong or do we only believe it when it fits certain narratives. Someone tell me what im supposed to believe im confused

 

[Booted]

....im confused

No ****.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

So is the CDC right or wrong or do we only believe it when it fits certain narratives. Someone tell me what im supposed to believe im confused

I'm beginning to doubt most of them, most of all Dr. Fauci, who it seems the CDC cow tows to. When someone like him, who's been the voice of this, is so consistently inconsistent...I don't buy **** they are saying.

Here is what I am buying. All those Doctors that keep getting their videos taken down on YouTube. The one in Texas. The two california doctors that put out the hour+ long video. The other California doctor. The ones who've given real, front-line testimony, the ones who are treating patients and seeing what is and is not working. Their messages were and are believable. Fauci? See below.

Fauci's 15 Biggest Contradictions and Wrong Predictions:
1.) Dr. Fauci says he warned Trump in January that the US was in real trouble but that is not what he said publicly.
In January Dr. Anthony Fauci told Newsmax TV that the United States “did not have to worry”about the coronavirus and that it was“not a major threat.”
2.) Dr. Fauci warned of an apocalyptic coronavirus pandemic — then just weeks later he compared the coronavirus to a bad flu.
3.) Dr. Fauci based all of his predictions on models the that were OFF BY MILLIONS and then later told reporters,“You can’t really rely on models.”
4.) On March 20th Dr. Fauci jumped in and during a press briefing on hydroxychloroquine treatment for coronavirus “corrected” the president saying, “You got to be careful when you say ‘fairly effective.’ It was never done in a clinical trial… It was given to individuals and felt that maybe it worked.”
Exactly two weeks later hydroxychloroquine was deemed the most highly rated treatmentfor the novel coronavirus in an international poll of more than 6,000 doctors.
5.) Dr. Fauci pushed these garbage models every step of the way.
A month ago Dr. Fauci claimed 1 million to 2 million Americans would die from coronavirus. Then he said 100,000 to 200,000 Americans will die from the virus. Three weeks ago he agreed 81,766 Americans would die from the coronavirus. Then by that Wednesday Then by that Wednesday the experts cut the number of deaths to 60,415 projected deaths. to 60,415 projected deaths.
6.) On Easter Dr. Fauci suggested President Trump. should have shut down the economy in February… When the number of known cases in the US was around 100. Fauci later walked back his attacks.
7.) Dr. Fauci said cruises were OK on March 9th. That was a huge error.
8.) Dr. Fauci said malls, movies and gyms were OK on February 29th. That was another huge mistake.
9.) Dr. Fauci was wrong about the first coronavirus deaths in the country. Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx and the CDC were off by nearly a month. California officials revealed in Aprilthat a patient in Santa Clara died from coronavirus on February 6th not February 29th.
10.) Dr. Fauci and the CDC missed themillions and millions of US citizenswho had already contracted the coronavirus before the draconian lockdowns took place. Knowing this could have prevented the economic calamity.
11.) OnApril 15, 2020, Fauci endorses Tinder hookups, unbelievably.
12.) Dr. Fauci relied on corrupt W.H.O rulesto lock down the United States and destroy the US economy. Meanwhile, this delays the herd immunity that is needed to prevent a future outbreak of this deadly virus.
13.) Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx used the Imperial College Model to persuade President Trump to lock down the entire US economy. The Imperial model has since been confirmed as A COMPLETE FRAUD.
14.) Dr. Fauci warned that Georgia would see a surge in coronavirus cases and deaths by opening their economy too early.
He was wrong again– In fact the opposite happened.
15.) And on Tuesday during testimony Dr. Fauci told Dr. Rand Paul that opening the schools would not be a good idea.

 

[Stoney]

The 'remarkably low' death rate was a direct consequence of the lockdown and stay at home measures which were implemented.

Go ahead pat yourself on the back Tim, for yet another Darwin Award-nominee post. It should be pinned, and re-pinned, to the top of the page, as you suggest, as a stark reminder of what we're dealing with on this board.

I assume you wouldn't like to discuss all the deaths that were caused by the lockdown?

 

[Stoney]

I don't think the death rate matters that much as overall deaths.

This is a very good point. So do you have any idea how many deaths there have been in the United States in the first 4 months of 2020? And how that number compares to the same time period of the last several years? No?

I wonder why no one is talking about that? The answer must not fit the narrative.

 

[Confluence]

So is the CDC right or wrong or do we only believe it when it fits certain narratives. Someone tell me what im supposed to believe im confused

The point of the lock downs was to "flatten the curve".

When did that happen?

All the damage after that point is governmental/political bullshit, from almost all angles, where the "professional" scientists are walking us to a less good place because they are bad at math, epidemiology, etc.

WHO's head will roll??